Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I thought that some time may have passed allowing more people to have read this book by now.
{snip}

Could anyone let me know whether it is worth forgoing food and clothing for this purchase?

The Introduction sounds familiar, I must have at least looked at this before. Probably didn't read the whole dissertation.

...a methodology that assumes a close association between the function of the English definite article and the Greek article is fundamentally inadequate for the purpose of generating a grammatical description of the later. In addition, the assertion that the Greek article has retained demonstrative force, particularly into the Hellenistic era, is something that is assumed rather than proved. On strictly morphological grounds, it is arguable that the article is more closely akin to the relative pronoun than the demonstrative pronoun. While this is occasionally acknowledged, it is rarely explored as a means of providing a comprehensive description of the article's function.

(Page 3 from the introduction)

Absolutely no reason to forgo food, the PDF of his dissertation is downloadable from several sites.

Thanks Stirling. I actually did read the dissertation quite a few months back, I also listened to his ETS presentation as well as the other two counter views given. Pretty sure I must have nearly walked into one or two lamp posts on the way to work trying to read it in the mornings.
The only reason I would be tempted to but the book is that he may have developed / refined his arguments between submission of the thesis and writing the book. I was also hoping that enough time would have passed now for people to critique it and possibly confirm or reject its claims. I do search online for reviews but have only come across Dan Wallace's.

Thanks for the response though, good to note that it is out there in pdf if others spot this thread

Having read the first 40 pages of the dissertation, I am favorably impressed with the lack obfuscation that characterized several of the most influential New Testament Greek SFL monographs 25 years ago[1]. Peters writes well and interacts with the relevant secondary literature. His description the Germany language influence on the understanding of the Greek article was fascinating.

I continue to be a little bit skeptical about the SFL doctrine[2] on surface structure (morphology) and its relationship to semantic function. This dogma appears to be fundamental to the SFL framework. Peters makes reference to it several times right up front. The weakness Peters attributes to the 19th century German treatment of the Greek article is tied up to some extent with 19th century philology. It would be ironic if SFL could be demonstrated as perpetuating similar notions about morphology and meaning/function. This is as yet a vague idea not a well developed critique of SFL. I had some discussions about this 20 years ago with members of the Roehampton Circle. Nothing was resolved, it was difficult to establish common ground. All the participants were sufficiently eclectic to make mutual understanding extremely difficult.

[1] Having read numerous works from the Systemic Functional (SFL) perspective, it's entirely possible that I no longer notice the metalanguage.

[2] I purposely avoided citing the dogma, I'm not sure I understand it. It it sounds like philology pre-dating Ferdinand de Saussure.

The only reason I would be tempted to but the book is that he may have developed / refined his arguments between submission of the thesis and writing the book. I was also hoping that enough time would have passed now for people to critique it and possibly confirm or reject its claims. I do search online for reviews but have only come across Dan Wallace's.

In my experience, if a book comes out within a year or two of the dissertation, it is pretty much a lightly edited version of the same. It takes a year just go from submission to printing, and usually after passing the defense, you're so spent that you don't have much more to give. I think in the Peters' case, you're looking at a cleaned up thesis for the book.

Books that come along 5+ years later, on the other hand, tend to be more revised and rewritten.

re. the link between morphology and semantic function I found it a useful thought when pulling in his further observations about the fact that the article can be used alongside pronouns other than the relative pronoun. He suggests that this is due to the similar function of the two.

Thanks for the link to Wallace. I found it amusing that Wallace agrees. I wonder if Wallace is aware that this is a fundamental doctrine of SFL. Morphologically: difference implies (a distinction in) meaning. Peters appears to be affirming the opposite: Morphologically: similarity implies functional-semantic relationship, not exactly identity but some sort of semantic overlap.

The second chapter (“The Common Function of the Article and Relative Pronouns: Methodology” [69–82]) puts forth Peters’s general approach. Two essential arguments are given for the association of the relative pronoun with the article in the Koine period: they are both used in similar constructions and they have a similar morphology. The first argument is explicated in subsequent chapters. The second argument seems to be against Peters’s overall thesis that the article’s functions have changed over time. He nowhere discusses the relative pronoun’s changing functions but uses morphology as an argument that the two have similar functions. Yet morphology is akin to etymology, and this argument looks suspiciously like what lexicologists call root fallacy or etymologizing. Syntactical studies could benefit from input from lexicology, reaching back to Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language and, through that landmark volume, to Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale. Throughout Peters’s treatment he is careful never to label the formal relationship of the relative pronoun and the article as etymological (though he comes close to this on p. 2), but by calling it morphological it seems to be little more than a rose with a different name.

—Daniel B. Wallace
September 1, 2016

RE: Brill edition, I totally agree with Stephen Carlson. Two years is a tight schedule for getting a dissertation into print.

I wonder if Wallace is aware that this is a fundamental doctrine of SFL[1]. Morphologically: difference implies (a distinction in) meaning. Peters appears to be affirming the opposite: Morphologically: similarity implies functional-semantic relationship, not exactly identity but some sort of semantic overlap.[2]

“etymologizing.” 4 I am forced to ask, would he level the same argument against M.A.K. Halliday? I devote considerable space to summarizing Halliday’s categories of WH- and TH- items, which serve as a model for my approach to the Greek article and relative pronouns. According to Halliday’s usage, in English the category of TH- items includes both demonstrative pronouns and the article. This categorization is based, in large part, on shared morphological features. As this morphological approach is well documented in the literature of Systemic Functional Linguistics, I would appear to be on solid theoretical ground. Additionally, I in no way argue that the co-categorization of the Greek article and relative pronoun be accepted solely on morphological grounds. I consider it only one piece of evidence in favor of such a categorization. Wa l l a c e ’s problem is not with me, but with a well-established and widely employed linguistic theoretical model.

I am not particularly interested, after reading the quotes, as nothing new is expected, the things I could read are well known and I doubt his idea of the article in regard to the rel. pronoun. When the data obviously is restricted to the New Testament, then the data is not sufficient to draw conclusion which could establish an "functional Grammar". Mac-Master is, at least as I know, not known for Linguistics, maybe someone from another field on linguistics? One question: can one help me getting the Wallace discussion of this "Grammar" Yours Peter
P.S. Ooooops, just saw the price - no way - end of discussion. And I see Brill is responsible for many regrets I had after buying e.g. the Porter epigone Matthewson on Aspect in Revelation (oh my goodness - should never, ever have been printed), in this Series. Brill has a good reputation, but printing Matthewson has done no good to them. Better something from trained classicists, folks from other field should stick to their expertise.